Renovations of apartment buildings along Armour Blvd.

[Walker]

^Free fare streetcar is a factor though, equidistant to downtown/Plaza. We'll see what they propose. I wouldn't be surprised if they test a 25 floor proposal.

insider info?

[earthling]

^Nope but I don't think the optimism is unrealistic. Would be more surprising if they completely ignored the opportunity.

[KCtoBrooklyn]

I realize it isn't a binary choice, but I would rather see three under-developed lots in Midtown filled in with 8 story buildings than one 24 story building and two empty lots.

I wouldn't mind 20+ story buildings, but I would be happy to see the area filling in with 6 to 12 story buildings for the foreseeable future.

What is the tallest new construction in Midtown in the last generation? Opus at Westport and 520 E Armour (which are around 6-7 stories)? Going to 25 stories may be too big of a leap. Right now, I don't think the land values justify it.

Let developers prove that mid-rise with decreasing parking ratios can work and drive up land values, then maybe we will see some high-rise development in 10 years.

[flyingember]

I realize it isn't a binary choice, but I would rather see three under-developed lots in Midtown filled in with 8 story buildings than one 24 story building and two empty lots.

I wouldn't mind 20+ story buildings, but I would be happy to see the area filling in with 6 to 12 story buildings for the foreseeable future.

What is the tallest new construction in Midtown in the last generation? Opus at Westport and 520 E Armour (which are around 6-7 stories)? Going to 25 stories may be too big of a leap. Right now, I don't think the land values justify it.

Let developers prove that mid-rise with decreasing parking ratios can work and drive up land values, then maybe we will see some high-rise development in 10 years.

Land values have no connection to how tall a building should be. Wouldn’t the goal be to pay as little as possible for the land and build as much as they think they can lease?

There’s no assurance of land being developed on a specific timeline, the last two lots could be used for pay parking.

Anything built residential at this scale also works us towards the glut of housing we need to keep housing prices down. So a 25 story building is highly beneficial to everyone.

[earthling]

MAC can afford to think long term. They had a long term vision for Armour and came through. Thinking 10+ years out, Armour/Main has an opportunity to become a high activity epicenter between Downtown/Plaza so that is one of the long term epicenters that they aren't going to waste when considering it strategically and there's a lot of realistic reasons to be responsibly optimistic when you have free fare fixed transit smack dab in the middle of *the* two major districts in city. They could end up with all 4 corners as high profile projects. Each building more dense than the first.

A vision doesn't always mean a fantasy one. In the investment world I'm engaged in, we take informed risks and this intersection could be informed risk worthy for *major* projects on each corner.

OTOH, if I were MAC with big plans for the intersection, wouldn't disclose too much of the long term strategy until owning all 4 corners.

[KCtoBrooklyn]

Land values have no connection to how tall a building should be.

There is a definite connection between land value and building density/height when it comes to the financials for a developer. Low land values don't preclude high rise construction, however, developers are disincentivized from building taller when there is cheap land. Price per unit climbs quickly as buildings get taller. If land is cheap, it can be more affordable for developers to buy more land to build additional units, rather than going vertical.

Conversely, when land values are high it gives greater incentive for more density. Developers need more units to cover the land cost. If the lands costs are high enough, it makes more sense to pay the higher cost per unit for going vertical rather than buying more land.

[kas1]

This development site is massive. They can fit 300+ units on it in a standard six-story wood-frame building. It makes no sense to build a far more expensive tower.

[moderne]

I would hope with the amount of land we are talking about, retail will be an important component. Basic walkable services in what is MAC's proprietary district will help attract and retain tenants in the corridor. Especially those who want to live without a car. A smaller market such as Trader Joe's?

[earthling]

Trader Joe's would be a good score but they tend to not do as many urban locations anymore. Maybe with free streetcar halfway between DT/Plaza they could go for it. I wonder if MAC has TJs as a tenant in any of their projects, could help.

[earthling]

This development site is massive. They can fit 300+ units on it in a standard six-story wood-frame building. It makes no sense to build a far more expensive tower.

Yes, they could but also an opportunity for something more substantial and they have the resources to do something more substantial to top off MACville. If they get a major retailer (Target, TJs, full grocery, etc) that would justify high enough rents for a tower. A tower would provide views of both DT/Plaza and would give some identity to MACville (Armourville, McArmour, whatever), especially if they grab all 4 corners and target substantially visible projects.

[flyingember]

This development site is massive. They can fit 300+ units on it in a standard six-story wood-frame building. It makes no sense to build a far more expensive tower.

KCMO is massive at 318 square miles. It makes no sense to build anything over six stories anywhere in the city. Instead let's sprawl with low density development and build highways everywhere to serve it.

Somehow I think you've figured out you're contradicting your own beliefs on macro scale with this idea on the micro scale.

[flyingember]

Land values have no connection to how tall a building should be.

There is a definite connection between land value and building density/height when it comes to the financials for a developer. Low land values don't preclude high rise construction, however, developers are disincentivized from building taller when there is cheap land. Price per unit climbs quickly as buildings get taller. If land is cheap, it can be more affordable for developers to buy more land to build additional units, rather than going vertical.

Conversely, when land values are high it gives greater incentive for more density. Developers need more units to cover the land cost. If the lands costs are high enough, it makes more sense to pay the higher cost per unit for going vertical rather than buying more land.

So in other words, because it costs more we shouldn't encourage urban development in the urban core. The needed density to support more transit, more retail in mixed use, that's less important than the cost of a project.

Even when they want to spend the money.

[KCtoBrooklyn]

So in other words, because it costs more we shouldn't encourage urban development in the urban core. The needed density to support more transit, more retail in mixed use, that's less important than the cost of a project.

That's putting words in my mouth. I didn't say that a high rise should be discouraged- just that it seems unlikely at this point with ample available land for development in the area. I think we will need to see more midsized developments filling up land, making it more scarce and valuable, before developers decide to build a tower.

I would hope with the amount of land we are talking about, retail will be an important component. Basic walkable services in what is MAC's proprietary district will help attract and retain tenants in the corridor. Especially those who want to live without a car. A smaller market such as Trader Joe's?

I think they could go bigger than a Trader Joe's. I would be happy to see one, but I don't think they will be an early adapter for the Midtown streetcar extension - maybe once the area/market is more established. Also, a smaller market like TJ's could fit in any number of places. This might be one of the largest footprint sites in Midtown ready for development along the streetcar extension (in addition to the American Century lots further south), so it is a chance to go larger. Full-sized supermarket, or maybe some sort of Target. With the whole left by Cinemark Plaza closing, there is a real hole in the area for movie theaters, so that might even make sense. Add in the plans for the Armory redevelopment down the street and you could have the beginning of a nice entertainment hub.

I think a large retail tenant requiring a significant amount of structured parking is the most likely scenario where this building might get pushed over 10 stories.

[flyingember]

So in other words, because it costs more we shouldn't encourage urban development in the urban core. The needed density to support more transit, more retail in mixed use, that's less important than the cost of a project.

That's putting words in my mouth. I didn't say that a high rise should be discouraged- just that it seems unlikely at this point with ample available land for development in the area. I think we will need to see more midsized developments filling up land, making it more scarce and valuable, before developers decide to build a tower.

Except land is already scarce and valuable on the scale of a development project. There is no other land available to build on because they don't own it.

You're confusing empty lots/parking lots as being available development sites.

Remember, downtown has parking lots that are 100+ years old. The scale of development across 318 square miles is such that there's never a reason to assume you'll see any given parcel developed on in your lifetime and should plan accordingly when one is.

[normalthings]

So in other words, because it costs more we shouldn't encourage urban development in the urban core. The needed density to support more transit, more retail in mixed use, that's less important than the cost of a project.

That's putting words in my mouth. I didn't say that a high rise should be discouraged- just that it seems unlikely at this point with ample available land for development in the area. I think we will need to see more midsized developments filling up land, making it more scarce and valuable, before developers decide to build a tower.

I would hope with the amount of land we are talking about, retail will be an important component. Basic walkable services in what is MAC's proprietary district will help attract and retain tenants in the corridor. Especially those who want to live without a car. A smaller market such as Trader Joe's?

I think they could go bigger than a Trader Joe's. I would be happy to see one, but I don't think they will be an early adapter for the Midtown streetcar extension - maybe once the area/market is more established. Also, a smaller market like TJ's could fit in any number of places. This might be one of the largest footprint sites in Midtown ready for development along the streetcar extension (in addition to the American Century lots further south), so it is a chance to go larger. Full-sized supermarket, or maybe some sort of Target. With the whole left by Cinemark Plaza closing, there is a real hole in the area for movie theaters, so that might even make sense. Add in the plans for the Armory redevelopment down the street and you could have the beginning of a nice entertainment hub.

I think a large retail tenant requiring a significant amount of structured parking is the most likely scenario where this building might get pushed over 10 stories.

The Main & Linwood facing parcels at Midtown Market Place would be great to fill in with urban developments like that. Imagine a TJ or small AMC that faces the street but also takes advantage of the unused homedepot lot.

[flyingember]

The Main & Linwood facing parcels at Midtown Market Place would be great to fill in with urban developments like that. Imagine a TJ or small AMC that faces the street but also takes advantage of the unused homedepot lot.

A Trader Joe's anywhere from the river to The Plaza would be nice.

But I can't imagine a grocery store in that development. I bet for taking on the risk at the time, Costco received a legally binding grocery store exclusivity contract on the scale of decades when they agreed to locate there. It's not uncommon for big box stores to even ban same use of their building when they move out.

[earthling]

I was at a newish Costco in Tampa area that had a new Aldi just built in its lot. Costco is also about bulk, not exactly public transit friendly shopping. Given this is halfway between DT/Plaza along free fare transit, MAC should have no problem attracting major transit friendly retailers that target both demos and rest of Midtown. They can go very very big with this intersection if they choose to make the investment. Given as much as they already have invested along Armour, if they want to get into hirise mode above a nice range of TOD oriented retail, this is the place for them to do it, ideally all 4 corners. Imagine 4 buildings in 20-30 floor range at each corner above TOD retail/services, ideally different architects/materials for each.

[flyingember]

I was at a newish Costco in Tampa area that had a new Aldi just built in its lot. Costco is also about bulk, not exactly public transit friendly shopping. Given this is halfway between DT/Plaza along free fare transit, MAC should have no problem attracting major transit friendly retailers that target both demos and rest of Midtown. They can go very very big with this intersection if they choose to make the investment. Given as much as they already have invested along Armour, if they want to get into hirise mode above a nice range of TOD oriented retail, this is the place for them to do it, ideally all 4 corners. Imagine 4 buildings in 20-30 floor range at each corner above TOD retail/services, ideally different architects/materials for each.

Why the interest in tearing down existing buildings on Main? Isn't there enough pad sites and parking lots to build on?

The SE corner is from 1998 and it has a decent design. We shouldn't be tearing it down for any reason
the next building to the south is only five stories but it was sold in 2014 and renovated and expanded on in a nice historic preservation

I'm hoping they don't tear down the bank on their current plan, the parking lot is plenty big for a large project surrounding it.

The NW corner could hold two buildings easily and it would be possible to relocate public storage as a tenant. Renovate the historic portion and keep it with a new high rise connected to it. Not sure if the next place north is still a car title business, but they would be easy to buy out with a good deal

[earthling]

Biz Journal...

https://www.bizjournals.com/kansascity/ ... etcar.html

"As we think about the next steps for Midtown and its evolution, we're very excited to invest significantly in this site," Cassel said Tuesday.

At a high level, Mac Properties plans to meld a residential element with what Cassel said could be a number of different resources, such as retail, offices and other services, accessible to neighborhood residents within a 15-minute trip..

[FangKC]

I don't see that it's necessary to tear down the US Bank building if it's a still-viable building. Build around it yes, and incorporate the building into the project. We have to stop thinking automatically about demolition of perfectly-functional 6-story buildings. It's not sustainable climate-wise to keep doing it. We need to re-use existing buildings in most cases. I still think it was a mistake to tear down the Board of Education building. I will cede the Pancho's restaurant for demolition do increase density.

Renovate the US Bank building for office space, and perhaps restaurants on the first floor that can use that outdoor terrace space in warm weather. Seel link below. Maintaining existing office space along the streetcar line is still needed to provide jobs for people who live nearby.

https://www.google.com/maps/@39.063542 ... 8192?hl=en

Fill out the rest of the block in apartment buildings, and put small retail spaces in the apartment buildings fronting Main.

What about reusing the self-storage building as a Trader Joe's? See link.

https://www.google.com/maps/@39.0637778 ... 8192?hl=en



Numbers indicate stories.